Bombay High Court
N.R.S. Sahasrabudhye (Smt.) vs Additional Custodian Of The National ... on 2 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)IILLJ78BOM
Author: S.H. Kapadia
Bench: S.H. Kapadia
JUDGMENT Kapadia, J.
1. By this Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Petitioner who is a widow of an employee who has served Kohinoor Mills for 38 years, seeks a direction against the Collector of Bombay to initiate recovery proceedings against Additional Custo-dian (N.T.C) pursuant to the Certificate issued under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 read with Rule 19 of the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 1972. The said Certificate is dated December 21, 1984 and it is issued by the Controlling Authority and First Labour Court Bombay in Application (PGA) No.279 of 1983. As per the said Certificate, the Controlling Authority has directed the Collector to recover Rs. 21,923/-due and payable as gratuity.
2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows. Petitioner's husband was an employee of Kohinoor Mills for 38 years. He retired on July 1, 1981. On December 20, 1983, Petitioner's husband made an application for gratuity being (PGA) No.279 of 1983. The said application was decided in favour of Petitioner's husband by the Labour Court on December 20, 1983. During the pendency of the said application No. 279 of 1983 before the Labour Court, Kohinoor Mill's Management came to be taken over under the provisions of Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983. This was on October 18, 1983. Thereafter, on December 20, 1983, Petitioner's husband's application came to be allowed by the Labour Court which granted gratuity in favour of the Petitioner's husband amounting to Rs. 21,923/-with interest mentioned therein. No appeal was preferred by National Textile Corporation against the said order of the Labour Court dated December 20, 1983. As the amount was not paid, Petitioner's husband took steps to execute and recover the amount awarded by the Labour Court. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the amount could be recovered by the State Government on the Labour Court issuing the Certificate to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. On December 21, 1984 the Labour Court granted Certificate under Section 8 of the said Act 1972 and directed the Collector to recover the amount awarded in favour of Petitioner's husband as gratuity to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The said Certificate is Annexure-3 to the Petition. By the said Certificate the Labour Court which is also the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act issued a Certificate under section 8 read with Rule 19 of Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 1972 against the Kohinoor Mills to the effect that the amount of Rs. 21,923/-due and payable to Petitioners husband as gratuity has not been paid and accordingly the Collector was directed to proceed to recover the said amount together with compound interest from January 20, 1984 as arrears of land revenue under Section 176 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. On May 4, 1985 Petitioner's husband died. Petitioner was not paid the amount despite the Certificate being issued under Section 8 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Ultimately, on February 19, 1985, Collector issued warrant of attachment to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The amount was not paid. In the above circumstance, the Petitioner as a widow filed suomotu Writ Petition in this Court. When the matter came for admission on August 30, 1990, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Union of India on behalf of the Additional Custodian, N.T.C. which has come on scene on October 18, 1983 to deposit in this Court by September 20, 1990 Rs. 21,923/-being the amount of gratuity payable to the Petitioner and on such deposit the warrant of attachment came to be stayed. Subsequently, the said amount was invested. Petitioner has been paid interest which is accrued from the date of investment on Rs. 21,923/-. This Petition has come up for final hearing today before us.
3. Mr. Apte the learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the present case, N.T.C. has never disputed its liability to pay the gratuity. Mr. Apte contended that the Textile Undertaking, namely, Kohinoor Mills was taken over under the provisions of Textile Undertakings (Taking over the Management) Act, 1983. This was on October 18, 1983. On December 20, 1983, Petitioner's application came to be granted by the Labour Court. However, N;T,C. did not challenge the said judgment by preferring appeal to the Industrial Court/Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Apte contended that, even today, N.T.C.has not challenged the Certificate issued by the Collector under section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Apte contended that in the absence of any dispute being raised by N.T.C., the amount deposited in this Court be paid over to the Petitioner. Mr. Apte contended that the claim for gratuity became crystallised only on December 20, 1983 i.e., after the appointed date when the Labour Court granted application made by the Petitioner's late husband for gratuity. In the circumstances , Mr. Apte contended that the liability accrued after the appointed date and therefore, N.T.C. was liable to pay the amount of gratuity.
4. Mr. Mehta the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Union of India as well as Mr. Gangal learned advocate appearing for N.T.C. contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The National Textile Corporation (South Ma-harashtra) Ltd. v Bhagirathi Gopal Mortal and Ors. reported in 1990-(ii)-CLR- Page 711 and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) v Shramik Janata Union and Ors. reported in 1990-II-CLR-Page 558, the issue involved is no more res Integra. Both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective Respondents contended that on identical issue was decided in favour of N.T.C. in the case of Bhagirathi Mortal (Supra) and in the circumstances Petitioner was not entitled to gratuity from N.T.C. According to the learned advocates, her claim was maintainable only against Kohinoor Mills because the liability accrued prior to October 18, 1983. Both the learned advocates contended on behalf of the Respondents that in view of Section 3(7) of the said act 1983, the assets of Kohinoor Mills were taken over in order to manage the Textile Undertaking properly and that liability of Kohinoor Mills was not taken over and, therefore, they were not liable to pay the gratuity because in the present case also the liability accrued prior to October, 1983. Even as regards enforcement of the recovery Certificate both the learned advocates pointed out that in the view of the Division Bench Judgment in N.T.C. v. Shramik Janata Union (Supra) it was not open to the Collector to enforce the liability against the N.T.C./Central Government and that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shramik Janata Union (Supra)
5. In the present case, we are not inclined to examine larger issues involved in this Petition. It may be mentioned that N.T.C.(South Maharashtra) is under B.I.F.R. The amount of Rs. 21,923 has been deposited by Union of India. The said amount has been invested. A portion of the interest amount has been paid to the widow from time to time. In the present case, the Controlling Authority issued a Certificate on December 21, 1984 directing the Collector to take steps to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. We are informed that the Collector has thereafter taken steps to issue notice of demand under section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Collector has also issued a warrant of attachment for recovery of the amount from N.T.C. as well as Kohinoor Mills and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on August 30, 1980, Union of India deposited Rs. 21,923/- in this Court which is also invested in Nationalised Bank. In the case of National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North)Ltd. v Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. reported in (1994-I-LLJ-345)(Bom), Division Bench of this Court was required to construe Section 5 of Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. In that case the question arose, whether provident fund payable after the appointed date became the liability of N.T.C. or the Textile Mill which was taken over under the said Act. The Division Bench of this Court took the view that the amount became payable after the appointed date and in the circumstances N.T.C. was liable to pay the amount. In the present case, the gratuity liability came to be crystallised after the appointed date. In the present case, the Collector has already taken steps to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in the present case the petitioner is seeking enforcement of the certificate issued by the Labour Court under Sec-
tion 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and that the collector has acted thereon by issuance of warrant by attachment and has threatened to recover the amount as land revenue. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the provision regarding Maharashtra Land Revenue Code have not been suspended by virtue of the said Act 1983. However, we are not inclined to examine larger issues involved in this Petition particularly when the amount has been deposited in this Court by the Central Government and the interest accrued thereon partly has been paid to the widow of the deceased employee. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, without going into the larger issue of law, we direct the Registrar to pay Rs. 21,923/- with interest if any to the Petitioner within two weeks. We are informed by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that initially the amount was invested in fixed Deposit which has matured. There is no difficulty in the said amount of Rs. 21,923/- being handed over to the Petitioner within 2 weeks with interest, if -ny, accrued thereon.
6. Before concluding, we wish to record our appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. R.S. Apte, Advocate who appeared at the request of this Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the Petitioner in the present Suo Motu Writ Petition.
7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
8. Mr. Gangal, Advocate appearing for N.T.C. applies for stay of the order for four weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, stay refused.
Certified copy expedited.